https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174962 The case involved the classification of excisable goods under Chapter Headings 3303.10 and 3306.10 of CETA 1985, determining duty liability, interest, and penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing, were alleged to have misclassified the product 'HYDENT-K,' leading to excise duty evasion. The dispute centered on whether the product should be classified as a cosmetic or a medicament. The appeal was allowed for a stay of the impugned order and waiver of the demanded amount until the appeal's disposal, recognizing a prima facie case for the appellants. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:45:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174962 The case involved the classification of excisable goods under Chapter Headings 3303.10 and 3306.10 of CETA 1985, determining duty liability, interest, and penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing, were alleged to have misclassified the product 'HYDENT-K,' leading to excise duty evasion. The dispute centered on whether the product should be classified as a cosmetic or a medicament. The appeal was allowed for a stay of the impugned order and waiver of the demanded amount until the appeal's disposal, recognizing a prima facie case for the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174962